If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

As a small business owner, I can tell you for a fact, that I only buy new raw materials and equipment when I perceive buyers. So, who are the job creators?

Customers are the job creators. Owners, like me, are merely conduits.

The reason I bring this up is the silly business of helping job creators, and the meaning is helping we the owners. We the owners make more money when the real job creators, my customers, have money in their pockets to buy my products.

This is true. A healthy economy has a good amount of DEMAND.

Even if taxes increased a bit, any business owner will still be doing well if they have plenty of customers willing to spend money. In fact, if demand increases to a healthy amount, most business owners would probably not care about higher taxes.

If people have more money in their pockets, they'll be more likely to go out and spend it. That would mean more business for small businesses (and even big businesses) everywhere.

But when you cut Social Security and/or medicare (like both parties want to do), you lose demand.

The reason we lost a ton of demand was due to the housing bubble of 2007, NOT because the government spent money and out of nowhere there were bad economic consequences.

If you want to talk about jobs in the current state-capitalist economy we live in now, you have to talk about demand. One way we can get plenty of demand back is by having a bigger stimulus package, and by NOT cutting social programs.

The GOP "job creator" stuff is stupid. It's just some focus-grouped marketing gimmick used because they don't understand their own ideology.

Originally Posted by bootleg42

If you want to talk about jobs in the current state-capitalist economy we live in now, you have to talk about demand. One way we can get plenty of demand back is by having a bigger stimulus package, and by NOT cutting social programs.

That doesn't work. People adjust their behavior to the stimulus, meaning you get less "increased demand" each time you do it (and we've been trying this idea for 50 years), and also it hurts you in the future because that money has to come from somewhere at some point.

That doesn't work. People adjust their behavior to the stimulus, meaning you get less "increased demand" each time you do it (and we've been trying this idea for 50 years), and also it hurts you in the future because that money has to come from somewhere at some point.

Actually you get more demand, and we needed the stimulus when we lost a ton of demand in the housing bubble.

The last stimulus WASN'T BIG ENOUGH, and according to the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/25099) the stimulus we ended up with achieved it's intended goals (goals that weren't big enough....but the mechanism worked for the goals that the stimulus intended to achieve). Here is another excellent paper by two excellent economists from Darthmouth College which used entirely different methodology than the CBO but with the same conclusions (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~bsacerdo/F...2011_02_08.pdf). If you want, I can explain and summarize to you the reports.

It needed to be bigger. Even many of Obama's own advisers told him it needed to be bigger. The demand we lost from the housing bubble was about 1.3 trillion dollars in annual demand. Obama's stimulus was only 300 billion dollars in annual demand.

Last I checked, 300 billion is a lot smaller than 1.3 trillion. If Obama's stimulus had targeted the 1.3 trillion annual demand mark, and if it didn't work, then I'd believe that the "stimulus didn't work". But it was not big enough, so we can't say stimulus doesn't work.

Actually you get more demand, and we needed the stimulus when we lost a ton of demand in the housing bubble.

The last stimulus WASN'T BIG ENOUGH, and according to the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/25099) the stimulus we ended up with achieved it's intended goals (goals that weren't big enough....but the mechanism worked for the goals that the stimulus intended to achieve). Here is another excellent paper by two excellent economists from Darthmouth College which used entirely different methodology than the CBO but with the same conclusions (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~bsacerdo/F...2011_02_08.pdf). If you want, I can explain and summarize to you the reports.

It needed to be bigger. Even many of Obama's own advisers told him it needed to be bigger. The demand we lost from the housing bubble was about 1.3 trillion dollars in annual demand. Obama's stimulus was only 300 billion dollars in annual demand.

Last I checked, 300 billion is a lot smaller than 1.3 trillion. If Obama's stimulus had targeted the 1.3 trillion annual demand mark, and if it didn't work, then I'd believe that the "stimulus didn't work". But it was not big enough, so we can't say stimulus doesn't work.

It gives you a boost. But at a cost. And, the more you do it, the less the boost.

Keynesians always say that the problem was not enough spending. They start, and they predict this huge multiplier effect, and then the spending goes into effect.....it doesn't work the way they said it would, it harms you in the long run, and they say "hmmmm. It must not have worked the way we thought it was going to because it wasn't big enough!"

Christ. I can get much better results. I can create tons of jobs with government spending power. I'll pay 40,000 people $50,000 a year to sit in an empty room. Keynesians say that that would be smart economic policy. Do you not see how that logic has to be fallacious? It has to be. Otherwise, you would never have a recession. Demand would slow, and the government would just flip a switch and erase it.

LOL, that is exactly what is accomplished through many supply side efforts,when we subsedize Oil, or allow for corporate malfiesance, or the rigging of the free market, or the artificially lowering of production costs through off shoring etc,etc, the only difference is who benefits...many people or a few...that is all that seperates supply side from demand side econimics.

It gives you a boost. But at a cost. And, the more you do it, the less the boost.

Keynesians always say that the problem was not enough spending. They start, and they predict this huge multiplier effect, and then the spending goes into effect.....it doesn't work the way they said it would, it harms you in the long run, and they say "hmmmm. It must not have worked the way we thought it was going to because it wasn't big enough!"

Christ. I can get much better results. I can create tons of jobs with government spending power. I'll pay 40,000 people $50,000 a year to sit in an empty room. Keynesians say that that would be smart economic policy. Do you not see how that logic has to be fallacious? It has to be. Otherwise, you would never have a recession. Demand would slow, and the government would just flip a switch and erase it.

guys, Im going to try and simplify things in regards to the economy one last time...

concetration of wealth has led to the fall of Kingdoms and empires, it also has been directly linked to higher instances of mental health and substance abuse issues.

Austerity doesnt work because the ONLY thing that will truley grow an economy ,besides supply side voodoo economics, is wealth redistribution.

When you give poor people other peoples money...they spend it.
At the grocery store, at the gas station, at Target, at K-mart, that in turn increases demand, and then you have job growth.

Job growth increses tax bases and then you have higher revenues.
Higher revenued ends deficet spending and allows you to pay off long term debt.

The only difference between this method and the republican method is to say let wealthy people KEEP more of thier money and THEY will create more hobs etc,etc, the problem as Ive said before is that the wealth creation they create continues to be JUST THEIR OWN,and the "trickle down" is only expressed in the stock market, in short, in retirement portfolois and long term assests, not in spending.
For an economy to GROW, wealth creation is SECONDARY TO SPENDING.
it shouldnt be that difficult a concept.

Point out where I ever said austerity would be a stimulative short term fiscal policy.

Cutting spending and getting a balanced budget is a long term policy. It's better in the long run.

Originally Posted by stephkyle7

For an economy to GROW, wealth creation is SECONDARY TO SPENDING.
it shouldnt be that difficult a concept.

No. It's not. If you give $1,000,000 to every poor person in the US, you make yourself much worse off economically. You may get a short term boost, but prices will adjust. Then, you have to pay back that $1,000,000 in the future at some point.

Can someone please explain to me why we encourage businesses to file their taxes as individuals? This seems like such a moronic idea to me. It perverts the discussion on individual tax rates and defeats the purpose of having an individual tax rate all together.

Point out where I ever said austerity would be a stimulative short term fiscal policy.

Cutting spending and getting a balanced budget is a long term policy. It's better in the long run.

No. It's not. If you give $1,000,000 to every poor person in the US, you make yourself much worse off economically. You may get a short term boost, but prices will adjust. Then, you have to pay back that $1,000,000 in the future at some point.

oh? and that has been born out where and when exactly?
Never you say? thats right,its supply side THEORY. and you keep on spouting it as if its fact despite 1000 years of proof through Fuedalism, aristocrasies,and capitalism that wealth concentration ultimately leads to the fall of the society.
You cut spending when the economy can support the cuts, once again in these forums you simply ignore anyones statements that factually refute the perspective which you choose to hold.
Austerity has failed in every european country that has attempted it since 2009, the countries that adopted stimulus the soonest are the ones that are moving the quickest out of recessionary forces,...including the US.